If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.

Sure, I will try to break that down when it's fresh in my mind. When I thanks to a friend, found SC and CF a couple of months ago I was suspicious. I’d been roaming various places like Reddit r/conspiracy trying to understand 9/11 but when I found SC I started to see how big a thing disinformation and shills really are. I gradually realized that every single one “conspiracy profile” was peddling lies to various degrees and that people on forums led me to the wrong conclusions (knowingly or unknowingly). And since this was the case, I was cautious about bad info on CF also. And that satellites could be a hoax was something I never had considered. Then I got more suspicious when you Hoi invited me to participate in that discussion. So I kind of gave my take on it without looking that much into the arguments made in the thread and arrogantly assumed you had gotten this wrong either intentionally or not.

My stance at the time was you can’t fake GPS and SatTV so rockets must be able to propel satellites into orbit. And I’ve been in that corner until recently. And if I wanted confirmation I could just go to Heiwas site or look at Paul Clarks video But then I started to think about the ludicrous speeds required for orbit and how much force a rocket must be able to generate to reach those speeds. And how effective can a rocket really be in vacuum? So I went back to CF and read some posts where Simon had his funny water jet example. And then it dawned on me – this is actually not about Newton physics since it’s energy and not mass that is involved. If you have a device loaded with lead bullets and fire them, your thing would move in the opposite direction. But if you have something equipped with a powerful laser in the rear nothing will happen when you light it up. And the concept of a rocket engine is that it is the energy in the fuel when it expands into gas that results in motion. But if that gas don’t have anything to push against, the result would be similar to lighting up that laser. You release energy, but that energy has no way to convert into motion. I laugh a bit now when I see how Simon and the other fine researchers here patiently try to get this message through. And even if rockets did work in vacuum (which I now highly doubt) I still think there would be no way to pack the amount of energy needed to get something up to a speed of 30 000 kph (assuming that is what is needed to reach orbit). And from there I listened to Simon on fakelologist radio and saw that Skywave and all the other things clicks together perfectly.

I did listen to the episodes on satellites at Clues Chronicle before this but they did not really sway me. I guess we heavily indoctrinated need to be spoon fed the basics first and those episodes felt a bit more for the already convinced. One idea is to make a summary thread on the case against satellites and try to hammer down these basic things that make them so questionable. I would also be happy to talk about it on a show and try to explain how I went from a firm believer to a doubter of satellites. And there are of course more things than I had time to mention here. My mind is the result of a lifelong indoctrination . I remember for example reading a book about a Swedish inventor called Håkan Lans that invented a traffic information system based on GPS in the nineties. Looking more closely at that guy today makes me suspect he is an invented persona.

And again, THANK YOU Hoi, Simon and all the rest of you for doing this. I know how frustrating and ungrateful it can be to try to raise awareness around these issues and you are clearly on the highest floor of this so to speak and have been doing it for several years.

As with my first post on rocketry in a vacuum (viewtopic.php?p=2404517#p2404517) I am aiming to get at the essence of why the orthodox narrative cannot be the reality in question. A perfect example of such, which I'm sure all of you are familiar with, is that a hollow aluminum body cannot slice through steel and concrete, and so we can say without a shadow of a doubt, that the 2001 psyop event was fraud, no "occam's razor" needed.

I wish to crystalize the magician's deceit and expose the illusion once and for all. There has been a great wealth of discussion on this thread, and any thinking being who has read through it would surely have developed hearty suspicion if not downright incredulity against the official claims of satellites. However, I think that there is a critical point which has gone unsaid or has been understated which needs to be addressed.

In order for a satellite to theoretically sustain orbit it must attain speeds upwards of 27,000 kilometers per hour. If anyone plans on doing calculations regarding the point I will make, let us say that the satellite is traveling 30,000 kilometers per hour. The rounded numbers will make for ease of mathematical analysis.

Now anyone who is familiar with Newton's law of gravitation knows that the force of gravity exerts itself on every part of an object independently and that the sum of these forces are understood as acting as a whole on the object's center of gravity. Were satellites designed as a cohesive sphere or some other polyhedral shape, then the point I am about to make would be poor. But, most of these designs are highly elongated shapes which could never withstand the inertial forces that they would be subjected to. Consider some examples:

The International Space Station

Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2

Jason 1

Sentinel 3

In these designs we see particular tension points where two large components of the object are held together by something like a small rod. These rods would supposedly function to balance any differential of forces that would be exerted on the respective components they hold together. But, there is no material on Earth which is strong enough to withstand the forces required by such designs. Specifically, I am referring to the centripetal force, which is related to the “push” one experiences when one goes around a sharp turn in a car.

It seems many people are under the impression that once a certain velocity is attained by a satellite it will be smoothly set into orbit never to be disturbed by the forces of gravity again. They must not know that an orbiting object would have an elliptical orbit, not a perfectly circular one and that even discounting the motion of the Earth, such an elliptical orbit would regularly accelerate and decelerate such an object. However, the Earth itself is not stationary, and in fact it has a tangential velocity of about 100,000 kilometers per hour as it moves around the Sun and it also has an elliptical orbit where when it is closer to the Sun it moves faster and when it is further from the Sun it moves slower.

Consider the scenario where an orbiting satellite with an average velocity of 30,000 kilometers per hour is moving along the opposite vector as the tangential vector of the Earth as it is traveling around the Sun, a situation which would occur once per orbit. At this instant the orbiting object and the Earth are moving away from each other at around 130,000 kilometers per hour, and as momentum must be conserved, this would cause a rapid deceleration of the orbiting object and this rapid deceleration would not be experienced evenly through the entire object, since it’s respective components would have different mass and with different mass there would different magnitudes of the centripetal force acting upon them. It is then the job of the small rods to handle the stress of transferring these forces through the components it holds together. But, the centripetal force is governed by the equation:

and the velocity at that instant would be 130,000 kilometers per hour, which means even a tenth of a percent difference in the mass of the two components would result in the more massive component being subjected to a force much greater than the less massive component. So, if even the lighter component had a mass of 1 kilogram and the heavier component had a mass of 1.001 kilograms then the rod would be subject to a 1,000,000 Newtons at this instant which is about 225,000 pounds of force. But, no material on Earth could allow for a single rod to uphold 225,000 lbs without failing, and the claimed satellites would have components which would have mass differentials much greater than a hundredth of a kilogram, and so the official narrative would require these rods to be subjected to forces many times greater than 225,000 pounds of force.

Therefore, even if it were practically possible to attain the extravagant speed and altitude necessary for orbit, such an object as those above would be instantaneously ripped apart.

Let us be clear then that were any of the above objects to orbit at all, they would orbit in pieces.

In my personal opinion, some of these designs look so flimsy I wouldn't trust walking under them on a windy day.

your calculations are made using standard physics applied to outer space, Newton's laws, Galilean relativity, etc., so it is all a complete nonsense. The only way to verify those calculations would be to put a manmade object out there, and this hasn't been done, otherwise there would be real images from space.

My argument was written for those who take the work of Galileo, Kepler and Newton seriously. Since it is all "complete nonsense" to you, perhaps you could provide a better explanation as to why the Moon orbits the Earth than they have done.

There is ample information in this forum regarding Newton's errors, other possible explanations for gravity, including a stationary Earth (rotating, but not translating). I say that physical laws as described by scientists are only valid in our environment. Those laws can apply to objects in outer space based on terrestrial observations of the sky, like comets, planets and binary stars. But those laws can't apply to manmade objects in outer space, that hasn't been tested (otherwise please provide proofs). I guess NASA or the military won't tell us what is the maximum altitude achieved by any manmade object

I never said that the work of Galileo, Kepler and Newton was a complete and perfect system and that the Laws of Nature do not extend beyond their theories. In fact, I am certain that Newton's framework was incomplete, the best proof of which is the fact that he could not use his differential equations to accurately model the solar system, and neither has anyone since.

I do hope to discuss what I believe is the next step in understanding Nature beyond his genius work, but that is irrelevant for now to the argument I laid out. There is nothing magical about an object being 400 kilometers in the sky where the laws of gravity and motion suddenly change. Classical mechanics is perfectly adequate to disprove the official narrative regarding satellites. To start getting into theories regarding stationary Earth and undoing heliocentricism, would only dilute any effort to clearly demonstrate that the official narrative is logically inconsistent and therefore fraud.

The_White_Lodge wrote:Now anyone who is familiar with Newton's law of gravitation knows that the force of gravity exerts itself on every part of an object independently and that the sum of these forces are understood as acting as a whole on the object's center of gravity. Were satellites designed as a cohesive sphere or some other polyhedral shape, then the point I am about to make would be poor. But, most of these designs are highly elongated shapes which could never withstand the inertial forces that they would be subjected to...

You are bringing up an interesting point which deserves to be further explored, although, as others have pointed out, we know next to nothing about how gravitation would affect a manmade object in orbit.

The_White_Lodge wrote:However, the Earth itself is not stationary, and in fact it has a tangential velocity of about 100,000 kilometers per hour as it moves around the Sun and it also has an elliptical orbit where when it is closer to the Sun it moves faster and when it is further from the Sun it moves slower. [...]Consider the scenario where an orbiting satellite with an average velocity of 30,000 kilometers per hour is moving along the opposite vector as the tangential vector of the Earth as it is traveling around the Sun, a situation which would occur once per orbit. At this instant the orbiting object and the Earth are moving away from each other at around 130,000 kilometers per hour...

I have a problem with your satellite acceleration/deceleration scenario: I get the math, but it´s like you are calculating acceleration from an absolute point of reference outside the earth/satellite system. If the satellite and the earth are "locked together", and there is no significant non-terrestrial force acting on the satellite within millions of miles, then the tangential velocity of the earth [allegedly] going around the Sun is as irrelevant for a satellite as it is for a conventional airplane.

The_White_Lodge wrote: To start getting into theories regarding stationary Earth and undoing heliocentricism, would only dilute any effort to clearly demonstrate that the official narrative is logically inconsistent and therefore fraud.

"Undoing heliocentricism"?

Some time in the (near) future, dear White Lodge, you and I will sit down and discuss it around a round table.

I agree the imagery and media fakery is all that anyone needs to see that NASA is a lie, but there are many people out there who far too entranced to "see" that. Many of these people however are willing to engage in dialogue, and often they become particularly enthusiastic with debunking any case against NASA. My aim is to do what I can to aid those who will make the case against NASA with as concise and effective an argument as possible.

Flabbergasted,

Thank you for bringing this up. I think your criticism may be correct and that the Earth's motion may be discounted. If that is discounted, then this would require the differential in weight between the two components held together by the rod to be around 20 times my original estimation, which would require at least a 2 percent differential in weight for the rod to be subject to 225,000 lbs of force.

Simon,

I still have not gotten a chance to read through the thread on your "SSSS system." Please instruct me where I may comment on that topic since that thread is now closed.

After considering what other errors I may have made in response of Flabbergasted's critique I realize that I have made a grave error in my calculations and in fact I neglected to divide by the radius (67,000,000 meters) which would render the centripetal acceleration for this object at 30,000 kilometers per hour only a little more than 10 meters per second, which is only slightly more than Earth's gravity.

If my admission of failure here be taken on good faith, I ask you all for a second chance to lay out a new argument which will fulfill my initial purpose.

The_White_Lodge wrote:Simon,I still have not gotten a chance to read through the thread on your "SSSS system." Please instruct me where I may comment on that topic since that thread is now closed.

Dear WL, it is closed for a reason - as that thread was (for me at least) just a 'training ground' of sorts where I posted my cosmic musings - and growing concerns regarding the geometrically problematic impossible Copernican model (which we were all taught in school). Since then, I've made quite some progress - and will soon publish my results. Til then, please hold back your comments on that topic - as I'd rather spend my writing time finishing my thesis ... -Thanks for your kind comprehension .

This article in Japanese http://www.sankei.com/premium/news/1711 ... 15-n1.html is in reference to a new technological effort to create, of all things, artificial meteor showers. The idea is, apparently, that satellites (rather than balloons or other aircraft or somesuch) will be used (as far as I can tell) to unload some kind of firework which streaks across the sky like your traditional shooting star.

I suppose this is another way to reinforce the conventional idea of satellites.

I would just like to clarify further the error of my initial post here. The force of gravity on any object is proportionate to its mass, meaning that mass differences of any two disconnected objects is irrelevant which is why a two bowling balls of different mass dropped from the same height will reach the ground at the same time.

What is not trivial is the length of an elongated object and thus the potential difference in radius between the Earth and its ends, and this would include my initial idea of two components of different masses on an object connected by a single rod. However, the length of that rod would have to be considerable for this to generate a significantly different magnitude of force on each respective component it connects. Even in this case, the difference in force would not rip apart the object instantaneously as I initially suggested, but rather it might create an oscillation of motion or general instability in the object, perhaps rendering it completely useless for any practical purpose.

Whether this would be true of satellites as we are told they are designed would be a subtle and controversial calculation, and so it is not likely to serve as the crux of any objection to the official narrative as I had hoped.

The_White_Lodge » November 25th, 2017, 3:02 am wrote:I would just like to clarify further the error of my initial post here. The force of gravity on any object is proportionate to its mass, meaning that mass differences of any two disconnected objects is irrelevant which is why a two bowling balls of different mass dropped from the same height will reach the ground at the same time.

What is not trivial is the length of an elongated object and thus the potential difference in radius between the Earth and its ends, and this would include my initial idea of two components of different masses on an object connected by a single rod. However, the length of that rod would have to be considerable for this to generate a significantly different magnitude of force on each respective component it connects. Even in this case, the difference in force would not rip apart the object instantaneously as I initially suggested, but rather it might create an oscillation of motion or general instability in the object, perhaps rendering it completely useless for any practical purpose.

Whether this would be true of satellites as we are told they are designed would be a subtle and controversial calculation, and so it is not likely to serve as the crux of any objection to the official narrative as I had hoped.

Thanks for the clarification. Although gravity is a controversial science as well. Please see our thread on the matter: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1641

There are plenty of other ways in which NASA's science contradicts itself in ways that break the premise of their false achievements, as we have been posting about and reviewing for years. You may want to review them. There may be some ideas that are new to you, which you benefit from. Thank you.